Effectiveness and Cost of Organized Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening

INTRODUCTION

Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data.

METHODS

The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial.

RESULTS

Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon.

DISCUSSION

Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

The effect of mailed outreach on FIT completion among patients aged 45-50 in a safety net healthcare system

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer screening is recommended starting at age 45, but there has been little research on strategies to promote screening in patients younger than 50.

METHODS

An outreach program quasi-randomly assigned patients aged 45-50 without recent fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy or contraindications to screening to two intervention arms: electronic outreach with email and text (electronic outreach only) versus electronic outreach plus mailed outreach with FIT, an instructional letter and a prepaid return envelope (mailed + electronic outreach). In response to known disparities in screening uptake, all Black patients were assigned to receive mailed + electronic outreach.

RESULTS

Among patients quasi-randomly assigned to an intervention (non-Black patients), the 180-day FIT completion rate was 18.8% in the electronic outreach only group (n = 1,318) and 25.0% in the mailed + electronic outreach group (n = 1,364) (difference 6.2% [95% CI 3.0, 9.4]). FIT completion was 16.6% among Black patients (n = 469), 8.4% (95% CI 4.1, 12.6) lower than among non-Black patients also assigned to mailed + electronic outreach.

CONCLUSION

Among patients aged 45-50, mailed + electronic outreach had a greater effect on FIT completion than electronic outreach alone. Crossover between intervention groups likely lead to an underestimation of the effect of mailed outreach.

The projected health and economic impact of increased colorectal cancer screening participation among Canadians by income quintile

OBJECTIVES

Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake by socioeconomic status have been observed in Canada. We used the OncoSim-Colorectal model to evaluate the health and economic outcomes associated with increasing the participation rates of CRC screening programs to 60% among Canadians in different income quintiles.

METHODS

Baseline CRC screening participation rates were obtained from the 2017 Canadian Community Health Survey. The survey participants were categorized into income quintiles using their reported household income and 2016 Canadian Census income quintile thresholds. Within each quintile, the participation rate was the proportion of respondents aged 50-74 who reported having had a fecal test in the past two years. Using the OncoSim-Colorectal model, we simulated an increase in CRC screening uptake to 60% across income quintiles to assess the effects on CRC incidence, mortality, and associated economic costs from 2024 to 2073.

RESULTS

Increasing CRC screening participation rates to 60% across all income quintiles would prevent 69,100 CRC cases and 36,600 CRC deaths over 50 years. The improvement of clinical outcomes would also translate to increased person-years and health-adjusted person-years. The largest impact was observed in the lowest income group, with 22,200 cases and 11,700 deaths prevented over 50 years. Increased participation could lead to higher screening costs ($121 million CAD more per year) and lower treatments costs ($95 million CAD less per year), averaged over the period 2024-2073.

CONCLUSION

Increased screening participation will improve clinical outcomes across all income groups while alleviating associated treatment costs. The benefits of increased participation will be strongest among the lowest income quintile.

Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas

Introduction

Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program.

Conclusions

A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

The Reach of Calls and Text Messages for Mailed FIT Outreach in the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening participation. We assessed the reach and effectiveness of adding notifications to mailed FIT programs.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analyses of a stepped-wedge evaluation of an enhanced mailed FIT program (n = 15 clinics). Patients were stratified by prior FIT completion. Those with prior FIT were sent a text message (Group 1); those without were randomized 1:1 to receive a text message (Group 2) or live phone call (Group 3). All groups were sent automated phone call reminders. In stratified analysis, we measured reach and effectiveness (FIT completion within 6 months) and assessed patient-level associations using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 16,934; 83% Latino; 72% completed prior FIT) were reached most often by text messages (78%), followed by live phone calls (71%), then automated phone calls (56%). FIT completion was higher in patients with prior FIT completion versus without [44% (Group 1) vs. 19% (Group 2 + Group 3); P < 0.01]. For patients without prior FIT, effectiveness was higher in those allocated to a live phone call [20% (Group 3) vs. 18% (Group 2) for text message; P = 0.04] and in those who personally answered the live call (28% vs. 9% no call completed; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Text messages reached the most patients, yet effectiveness was highest in those who personally answered the live phone call.

IMPACT

Despite the broad reach and low cost of text messages, personalized approaches may more successfully boost FIT completion.

The implementation and mechanisms of advance notification for cancer screening: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To describe and synthesise information on the content and delivery of advance notifications (information about cancer screening delivered prior to invitation) used to increase cancer screening participation and to understand the mechanisms that may underlie their effectiveness.

METHODS

Searches related to advance notification and cancer screening were conducted in six electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science) and results were screened for eligibility. Study characteristics, features of the advance notifications (cancer type, format, delivery time, and content), and the effect of the notifications on cancer screening participation were extracted. Features were summarised and compared across effective versus ineffective notifications.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included in this review, reporting on 33 unique advance notifications. Of these, 79% were sent via postal mail, 79% were distributed prior to bowel cancer screening, and most were sent 2 weeks before the screening offer. Twenty-two full versions of the advance notifications were obtained for content analysis. Notifications included information about cancer risk, the benefits of screening, barriers to participation, social endorsement of cancer screening, and what to expect throughout the screening process. Of the 19 notifications whose effect was tested statistically, 68% were found to increase screening (by 0.7%-16%). Effectiveness did not differ according to the format, delivery time, or content within the notification, although some differences in cancer type were observed.

CONCLUSION

Future research should explore the effectiveness of advance notification via alternative formats and for other screening contexts and disentangle the intervention- and person-level factors driving its effect on screening participation.

Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice

Introduction

The effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic-community practice.

Methods

Data from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence.

Results

The Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Real-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.

Unsatisfactory Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Prevalence, Reasons, and Subsequent Testing

BACKGROUND

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an effective colorectal cancer screening modality. Little is known about prevalence, reasons, and testing after unsatisfactory FIT, or a FIT that cannot be processed by the laboratory due to inadequate stool specimen or incomplete labeling.

METHODS

Our retrospective cohort study examined unsatisfactory FIT among average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years in a large, integrated, safety-net health system who completed an index FIT from 2010 to 2019. We determined prevalence of unsatisfactory FIT and categorized reasons hierarchically. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with: (i) unsatisfactory FIT; and (ii) subsequent testing within 15 months of the unsatisfactory FIT.

RESULTS

Of 56,980 individuals completing an index FIT, 10.2% had an unsatisfactory FIT. Reasons included inadequate specimen (51%), incomplete labeling (27%), old specimen (13%), and broken/leaking container (8%). Unsatisfactory FIT was associated with being male [OR, 1.10; confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.16], Black (OR, 1.46; CI, 1.33-1.61), Spanish speaking (OR, 1.12; CI, 1.01-1.24), on Medicaid (OR, 1.42; CI, 1.28-1.58), and received FIT by mail (OR, 2.66; CI, 2.35-3.01). Among those with an unsatisfactory FIT, fewer than half (41%) completed a subsequent test within 15 months (median, 4.4 months). Adults aged 50-54 years (OR, 1.16; CI, 1.01-1.39) and those who received FIT by mail (OR, 1.92; CI, 1.49-2.09) were more likely to complete a subsequent test.

CONCLUSIONS

One in ten returned a FIT that could not be processed, mostly due to patient-related reasons. Fewer than half completed a subsequent test after unsatisfactory FIT.

IMPACT

Screening programs should address these breakdowns such as specimen collection and labeling to improve real-world effectiveness. See related In the Spotlight, p. 183.

Effective strategies for Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) programs to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among populations with limited access to the healthcare system: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death globally. CRC screening can reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. However, socially disadvantaged groups may disproportionately benefit less from screening programs due to their limited access to healthcare. This poor access to healthcare services is further aggravated by intersecting, cumulative social factors associated with their sociocultural background and living conditions. This rapid review systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence on the effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) programs in increasing CRC screening in populations who do not have a regular healthcare provider or who have limited healthcare system access.

METHODS

We used three databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOhost CINAHL. We searched for systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and quantitative and mixed-methods studies focusing on effectiveness of FIT programs (request or receipt of FIT kit, completion rates of FIT screening, and participation rates in follow-up colonoscopy after FIT positive results). For evidence synthesis, deductive and inductive thematic analysis was conducted. The findings were also classified using the Cochrane Methods Equity PROGRESS-PLUS framework. The quality of the included studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Findings from the 25 included primary studies were organized into three intervention design-focused themes. Delivery of culturally-tailored programs (e.g., use of language and interpretive services) were effective in increasing CRC screening. Regarding the method of delivery for FIT, specific strategies combined with mail-out programs (e.g., motivational screening letter) or in-person delivery (e.g., demonstration of FIT specimen collection procedure) enhanced the success of FIT programs. The follow-up reminder theme (e.g., spaced out and live reminders) were generally effective. Additionally, we found evidence of the social determinants of health affecting FIT uptake (e.g., place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, gender and/or sex).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this rapid review suggest multicomponent interventions combined with tailored strategies addressing the diverse, unique needs and priorities of the population with no regular healthcare provider or limited access to the healthcare system may be more effective in increasing FIT screening. Decision-makers and practitioners should consider equity and social factors when developing resources and coordinating efforts in the delivery and implementation of FIT screening strategies.

Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation are evidence-based practices shown to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up in various settings, yet these programs have not been broadly adopted by health systems and organizations that serve diverse populations. Reasons for low adoption rates are multifactorial, and little research explores approaches for scaling up a complex, multi-level CRC screening outreach intervention to advance equity in rural settings.

METHODS

SMARTER CRC, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot project, is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed FIT and patient navigation program involving 3 Medicaid health plans and 28 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho followed by a national scale-up trial. The SMARTER CRC intervention combines mailed FIT outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. We applied the framework from Perez and colleagues to identify the intervention's components (including functions and forms) and scale-up dissemination strategies and worked with a national advisory board to support scale-up to additional organizations. The team is recruiting health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations in the USA that serve a rural population. To teach organizations about the intervention, activities include Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring learning collaboratives, a facilitation guide and other materials, a patient navigation workshop, webinars, and individualized technical assistance. Our primary outcome is program adoption (by component), measured 6 months after participation in an ECHO learning collaborative. We also assess engagement and adaptations (implemented and desired) to learn how the multicomponent intervention might be modified to best support broad scale-up.

DISCUSSION

Findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP no.: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Effectiveness and Cost of an Enhanced Mailed Fecal Test Outreach Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Trial

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening rates, yet little is known about how to optimize these programs for effectiveness and cost.

METHODS

PROMPT was a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized effectiveness trial of mailed FIT outreach. Participants in the standard condition were mailed a FIT and received live telephone reminders to return it. Participants in the enhanced condition also received a tailored advance notification (text message or live phone call) and two automated phone call reminders. The primary outcome was 6-month FIT completion; secondary outcomes were any colorectal cancer screening completion at 6 months, implementation, and program costs.

RESULTS

The study included 27,585 participants (80% ages 50-64, 82% Hispanic/Latino; 68% preferred Spanish). A higher proportion of enhanced participants completed FIT at 6 months than standard participants, both in intention-to-treat [+2.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI; 0.4-5.2)] and per-protocol [limited to individuals who were reached; +16.9%, 95% CI (12.3-20.3)] analyses. Text messages and automated calls were successfully delivered to 91% to 100% of participants. The per-patient cost for standard mailed FIT was $10.84. The enhanced program's text message plus automated call reminder cost an additional $0.66; live phone calls plus an automated call reminder cost an additional $10.82 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding advance notifications and automated calls to a standard mailed FIT program boosted 6-month FIT completion rates at a small additional per-patient cost.

IMPACT

Enhancements to mailed FIT outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening participation. Future research might test the addition of educational video messaging for screening-naïve adults.

Changes in uptake of stool-based colorectal cancer screening during the Covid-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized and endoscopic colon screening includes a number of barriers that were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. At-home stool-based screening (SBS) increased during the pandemic and potentially reached eligible adults hesitant to be screened by endoscopy. The purpose of this analysis was to examine the change in uptake of SBS during the pandemic among adults not screened within guidelines by endoscopy.

METHODS

We used data from the 2019 and 2021 National Health Interview Surveys to estimate uptake of SBS among adults aged 50-75 years, without a previous diagnosis of CRC and without guideline-concordant endoscopic screening. We also examined provider recommendations for screening tests. To examine if changes in uptake differed during the pandemic by demographic and health characteristics, we combined survey years and ran logistic regression models with an interaction term for each factor and survey year.

RESULTS

In our study population, SBS increased 74% overall from 2019 to 2021 (8.7% to 15.1%; p < 0.001), with the largest percent increase among those aged 50-52 years (3.5% to 9.9%; p < 0.001). Among those aged 50-52 years, the ratio of endoscopy to SBS changed from 83%/17% in 2019 to 55%/45% in 2021. Cologuard was the only screening test where recommendations by healthcare providers significantly increased from 2019 (10.6% to 16.1%; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Use and recommendations for SBS increased substantially during the pandemic. Increased awareness among patients could potentially improve future CRC screening rates if uptake of SBS occurs among those unable or unwilling to be screened by endoscopy.

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

Equitable Implementation of Mailed Stool Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Navigation in a Safety Net Health System

BACKGROUND

Mailed stool testing programs increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in diverse settings, but whether uptake differs by key demographic characteristics is not well-studied and has health equity implications.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the uptake and equity of the first cycle of a mailed stool test program implemented over a 3-year period in a Central Texas Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) system.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study within a single-arm intervention.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients in an FQHC aged 50-75 at average CRC risk identified through electronic health records (EHR) as not being up to date with screening.

INTERVENTIONS

Mailed outreach in English/Spanish included an introductory letter, free-of-charge fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and lab requisition with postage-paid mailer, simple instructions, and a medical records update postcard. Patients were asked to complete the FIT or postcard reporting recent screening. One text and one letter reminded non-responders. A bilingual patient navigator guided those with positive FIT toward colonoscopy.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportions of patients completing mailed FIT in response to initial cycle of outreach and proportion of those with positive FIT completing colonoscopy; comparison of whether proportions varied by demographics and insurance status obtained from the EHR.

KEY RESULTS

Over 3 years, 33,606 patients received an initial cycle of outreach. Overall, 19.9% (n = 6672) completed at least one mailed FIT, 5.6% (n = 374) tested positive during that initial cycle, and 72.5% (n = 271 of 374) of those with positive FIT completed a colonoscopy. Hispanic/Latinx, Spanish-speaking, and uninsured patients were more likely to complete mailed FIT compared with white, English-speaking, and commercially insured patients. Spanish-speaking patients were more likely to complete colonoscopy after positive FIT compared with English-speaking patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Mailed FIT outreach with patient navigation implemented in an FQHC system was effective in equitably reaching patients not up to date for CRC screening.

Effect of Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach for Patients Newly Eligible for Colorectal Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Limited data exists on the effectiveness of organized outreach campaigns on CRC screening completion for patients who are newly eligible for such screening.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of an existing clinical trial dataset of a publicly funded safety-net health system serving low-income populations.

RESULTS

A total of 619 patients aged 50-51 received the outreach intervention and 3108 patients aged greater than 51 years old who had no prior history of FIT testing similarly received the outreach intervention. Patients newly eligible for FIT were more likely to complete a FIT test compared with older patients who had yet to complete a FIT test (58.3% vs 40.5%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who are newly eligible for colorectal cancer screening are more likely to respond to outreach interventions than older patients without a prior history of FIT, indicating newly eligible patients across diverse populations may benefit from targeted outreach intervention.

Neighborhood socioeconomic status and the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening outreach with mailed fecal immunochemical tests within a safety net healthcare system in San Francisco, CA: A subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Neighborhood context shapes opportunities and barriers for residents to access healthcare and cancer screening. Neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) is associated with disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the extent to which the effectiveness of specific screening interventions vary by nSES has not been studied. The original trial conducted in San Francisco, CA from 2016 to 2017 randomly assigned patients eligible for CRC screening either to a multicomponent intervention including advanced notification, mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits and reminders or to a control group receiving usual care. For the nSES analysis addresses for 9699 patients were geocoded and stratified by city-wide nSES quintile (Q1 lowest, Q5 highest) using an established index at the census tract level. Compared to usual care, the outreach intervention improved FIT test completion at one year (58.7% vs 38.4%; OR 2.32 [2.14, 2.52]) but its effectiveness did not vary substantially by nSES quintile (adjusted OR Q1 2.64 [2.30, 3.04]; Q2 2.43 [2.04, 2.90]; Q3 2.31 [1.84, 2.89]; Q4 2.47 [1.86, 3.28]; Q5 2.64 [1.83, 3.81]; Wald test for interaction p = 0.87). The implementation of mailed FIT outreach has the potential to increase CRC screening completion without leading to disparities in screening related to nSES (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02613260).

Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

The impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy and cancer screening: a focus on access and equity

The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has had a profound and lasting impact on healthcare delivery. Gastrointestinal endoscopy services were limited during the early phases of the pandemic, which has resulted in ongoing procedural backlog. Procedural delays have had continuing effects including delayed colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses and exacerbation of existing disparities in the CRC-screening and treatment pathways. In this review, we outline these effects as well as the variety of strategies that have been proposed to eliminate this backlog, including increased endoscopy hours, re-triaging of referrals, and alternative CRC-screening strategies.

Self-Reported Reasons for Inconsistent Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Using FIT in Flanders, Belgium

Background: In Flanders, the uptake in the population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program (using fecal immunochemical test, FIT) is suboptimal (~50%). This study explored the reasons for inconsistent participation in FIT screening among irregular participants in Flanders. Methods: An online survey with both open questions and fixed statements was sent to irregular participants (2016–2018) in the Flemish CRC screening program. A reminder email followed eight weeks after the first email. Data analysis used both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Post-stratification weights based on gender, age group, and the first two digits of the postcode were employed to reduce non-response bias. Results: In total, 5328 out of 19,592 irregular participants responded to the survey. While the main reasons not to participate were related to ‘postponing participation’ and ‘having other priorities’, the main reasons to participate were related to the importance of (preventive) health checks. The role of general practitioners (GPs) in promoting CRC screening also emerged as an important theme among the respondents’ answers (based on fixed statements). Conclusions: The study reported the main reasons for inconsistent participation in FIT screening for CRC in Flanders. The findings are helpful in guiding tailored interventions to increase FIT screening uptake in the region.

Durability of FIT Screening After Cessation of a Screening Outreach Intervention

INTRODUCTION

Organized outreach to increase CRC screening using mailed FIT tests has been shown to be effective, but durable changes to screening behavior after cessation of screening is not known.

METHODS

In this study, after cessation of funding for an organized cancer screening outreach program, we evaluated whether adherence to screening remained elevated. Patients aged 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight safety net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention vs usual care alone in 2016 to 2018; the primary outcome analyzed was the difference in the cumulative proportion of completed FIT screening between study assignments 1 year after study cessation.

RESULTS

Despite higher rates of FIT screening for patients who were randomly assigned to the outreach intervention, FIT completion was not significantly different between the group that received the outreach services versus the usual care group (28.3% vs 29.8%, p = 0.158).

CONCLUSION

Outreach campaigns and their activities must be sustained to maintain improved rates of screening participation.

Novel Application of Predictive Modeling: A Tailored Approach to Promoting HCC Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE

There has been increased interest in interventions to promote hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance given low utilization and high proportions of late stage detection. Accurate prediction of patients likely versus unlikely to respond to interventions could allow a cost-effective approach to outreach and facilitate targeting more intensive interventions to likely non-responders.

DESIGN

We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial evaluating a mailed outreach strategy to promote HCC surveillance among 1200 cirrhosis patients at a safety-net health system between December 2014 and March 2017. We developed regularized logistic regression (RLR) and gradient boosting machine (GBM) algorithm models to predict surveillance completion during each of the 3 screening rounds in a training set (n = 960). Model performance was assessed using multiple performance metrics in an independent test set (n = 240).

RESULTS

Among 1200 patients, surveillance was completed in 41-47% of patients over the three rounds. The RLR and GBM models demonstrated good discriminatory accuracy, with area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of 0.67 and 0.66 respectively in the first surveillance round and improved to 0.77 by the third surveillance round after incorporating prior screening behavior as a feature. Additional performance characteristics including the Brier score, Hosmer-Lemeshow test and reliability diagrams were also evaluated. The most important variables for the predictive model were prior screening completion status and past primary care contact.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive models can help stratify patients' likelihood to respond to surveillance outreach invitations, facilitating tailored strategies to maximize effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCC surveillance population health programs.

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits.

METHODS

This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap.

RESULTS

The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020.

LAY SUMMARY

Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated?

FINDINGS

When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.

Increased Colorectal Cancer Screening Sustained with Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Reports of mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach effectiveness over time are minimal. We aimed to better evaluate a mailed FIT program with longitudinal metrics.

METHODS

A total of 10,771 patients aged 50 to 75 years not up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. The intervention arm received an advanced notification call and informational postcard prior to a mailed FIT. Usual care was at the discretion of the primary care provider. Patients were followed for up to 2.5 years. The primary outcome was the difference in cumulative proportion of completed FIT screening between arms. Screening was further examined with the proportion of time up-to-date, consistency of adherence, and frequency of abnormal FIT.

RESULTS

The cumulative proportion of FIT completion was higher in the outreach intervention (73.2% vs 55.1%; P < .001). The proportion of time covered by screening was higher in the intervention group (46.8% vs 27.3%; Δ19.6%; 95% confidence interval, 18.2%-20.9%). Patients assigned to FIT outreach were more likely to consistently complete FITs (2 completed of 2 offered) (50.1% vs 21.8%; P < .001). However, for patients who did not complete the FIT during the first cycle, only 17.1% completed a FIT during the second outreach cycle. The number and overall proportion of abnormal FIT was significantly higher in the outreach intervention (6.9% Outreach vs 4.1% Usual Care; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Organized mailed FIT outreach significantly increased colorectal cancer screening over multiple years in this safety-net health system. Although mailing was overall effective, the effect was modest in patients who did not complete FIT in first cycle of intervention. (ClincialTrials.gov, NCT02613260).

Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) imposes significant morbidity and mortality, yet it is also largely preventable with evidence-based screening strategies. In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated guidance, recommending screening begin at age 45 for average-risk individuals to reduce CRC incidence and mortality in the United States (US). The Task Force recommends screening with one of several screening strategies: high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HSgFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (virtual colonoscopy), flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FIT, or traditional colonoscopy. In addition to these recommended options, there are several emerging and novel CRC screening modalities that are not yet approved for first-line screening in average-risk individuals. These include blood-based screening or “liquid biopsy,” colon capsule endoscopy, urinary metabolomics, and stool-based microbiome testing for the detection of colorectal polyps and/or CRC. In order to maximize CRC screening uptake in the US, patients and providers should engage in informed decision-making about the benefits and limitations of recommended screening options to determine the most appropriate screening test. Factors to consider include the invasiveness of the test, test performance, screening interval, accessibility, and cost. In addition, health systems should have a programmatic approach to CRC screening, which may include evidence-based strategies such as patient education, provider education, mailed screening outreach, and/or patient navigation, to maximize screening participation.

Health plan-based mailed fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening among dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees: Outcomes of 2 program models

BACKGROUND

Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies).

METHODS

This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described.

RESULTS

All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126).

CONCLUSIONS

An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees.

LAY SUMMARY

Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Advance Notification Phone Calls vs Text Messages Prior to Mailed Fecal Test Outreach

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Mailing fecal immunochemical test (FITs) to individuals who are due for screening (mailed FIT outreach) increases colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Little is known about how phone-based advance notifications (primers) affect the effectiveness of mailed FIT outreach programs.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of patients at a large urban health center, 50-75 years old and due for screening, with no record of a prior FIT. Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received a live phone call primer (n = 1203) or a text message primer (n = 1622), from June through December 2018. The participants were then mailed a FIT kit, followed by 2 automated calls, and live reminder calls delivered by the care team. The main outcome was completion of FIT within 3 months of assignment to the live phone call or text message group.

RESULTS

Participants had a FIT completion rate of 16.8%, a mean age of 58 years, and 80% were Latino. In adjusted intention to treat analyses (n = 2825), FIT completion rates were higher in the patients assigned to receive a live phone call vs text message primer (percentage point difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, 0.4%-6.2%). Between-group differences increased to 7.3% points (95% CI, 3.6%-11.0%) in the per-protocol analysis of 2144 participants reached by the text message (1320/1622, 81%), live call (438/1203, 36%), or voice message (386/1203, 32%). This rate increased to 14.9% points (95% CI; 9.6%-20.1%) in the per-protocol analysis of 1758 participants reached by the text message or reached by the live call.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial, advance notification live phone calls outperformed text messages in prompting health center patients who had not previously completed a FIT to complete a mailed FIT. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT03167125.

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Mailed FIT in a Safety Net Clinic Population

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, including for vulnerable patients, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the initial cycle of our mailed FIT program from November 2017 to July 2019 in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) system in Central Texas.

DESIGN

Single group intervention and economic analysis PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were those ages 50-75 who had been seen recently in a system practice and were not up to date with screening.

INTERVENTION

The program mailing packet included an introductory letter in plain language, the FIT itself, easy to read instructions, and a postage-paid lab mailer, supplemented with written and text messaging reminders.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured effectiveness based on completion of mailed FIT and cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per person screened. Costs were measured using detailed micro-costing techniques from the perspective of a third-party payer and expressed in 2019 US dollars. Direct costs were based on material supply costs and detailed observations of labor required, valued at the wage rate.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 22,838 eligible patients who received program materials, mean age was 59.0, 51.5% were female, and 43.9% were Latino. FIT were successfully completed by 19.2% (4395/22,838) patients at an average direct cost of $5275.70 per 500-patient mailing. Assuming completed tests from the mailed intervention represent incremental screening, the direct cost per patient screened, compared with no intervention, was $54.83. Incorporating start-up and indirect costs increases total costs to $7014.45 and cost per patient screened to $72.90. Alternately, assuming 2.5% and 5% screening without the intervention increased the direct (total) cost per patient screened to $60.03 ($80.80) and $67.05 ($91.47), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mailed FIT is an effective and cost-effective population health strategy for CRC screening in vulnerable patients.

Low Rates of Colonoscopy Follow-up After a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test in a Medicaid Health Plan Delivered Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

BACKGROUND

Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is necessary for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to be effective. We report colonoscopy follow-up rates after a positive FIT overall and by population characteristics in the BeneFIT demonstration pilot, a Medicaid health insurance plan-delivered mailed FIT outreach program.

METHODS

In 2016, 2 health insurance plans in Oregon and in Washington state mailed FIT kits to Medicaid patients who, based on claims data, were overdue for CRC screening. We report follow-up colonoscopy completion rates after positive FIT, and differences in completion rates by age, sex, race, ethnicity, preferred language, and number of primary care visits in the prior year. This research was human subjects approved with a waiver of consent for data collection.

RESULTS

The FIT positivity rates in Health Plan Oregon and Health Plan Washington were 7.9% (39/488) and 14.6% (125/857), respectively. Colonoscopy completion rates within 12 months of the positive test were 35.9% (14/41) in Health Plan Oregon and 32.8% (41/125) in Health Plan Washington. Colonoscopy completion rates were higher among individuals who preferred a language other than English (Non-English speakers 70.0%, English speakers 31.3%, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

In a health plan-delivered mailed FIT outreach program, follow-up colonoscopy rates after a positive test were low. Additional interventions are needed to assure colonoscopy after a positive FIT test and to reap the benefits of screening.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test

BACKGROUND

It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups.

METHODS

Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018.

RESULTS

In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups.

IMPACT

These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.

Colorectal cancer screening in the COVID-19 era

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed form of cancer and second most deadly cancer worldwide. Introduction of better screening has improved both incidence and mortality. However, as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began, healthcare resources were shunted away from cancer screening services resulting in a sharp decrease in CRC screening and a backlog of patients awaiting screening tests. This may have significant effects on CRC cancer mortality, as delayed screening may lead to advanced cancer at diagnosis. Strategies to overcome COVID-19 related disruption include utilizing stool-based cancer tests, developing screening protocols based on individual risk factors, expanding telehealth, and increasing open access colonoscopies. In this review, we will summarize the effects of COVID-19 on CRC screening, the potential long-outcomes, and ways to adapt CRC screening during this global pandemic.

Model-Based Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance

COVID-19 has decreased colorectal cancer screenings.

Objective

To estimate the degree to which expanding fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A previously developed simulation model was adopted to estimate how much COVID-19 may have contributed to colorectal cancer outcomes. The model included the US population estimated to have completed colorectal cancer screening pre-COVID-19 according the American Cancer Society. The model was designed to estimate colorectal cancer outcomes between 2020 and 2023. This analysis was completed between July and December 2020.

Exposures

Adults screened for colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer cases detected by stage.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Estimates of colorectal cancer outcomes across 4 scenarios: (1) 9 months of 50% colorectal cancer screenings followed by 21 months of 75% colorectal cancer screenings; (2) 18 months of 50% screening followed by 12 months of 75% screening; (3) scenario 1 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests; and (4) scenario 2 with increased use of fecal immunochemical tests.

Results

In our simulation model, COVID-19-related reductions in care utilization resulted in an estimated 1 176 942 to 2 014 164 fewer colorectal cancer screenings, 8346 to 12 894 fewer colorectal cancer diagnoses, and 6113 to 9301 fewer early-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses between 2020 and 2023. With an abbreviated period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 588 844 colorectal cancer screenings and 2836 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1953 (68.9%) were early stage. In the event of a prolonged period of reduced colorectal cancer screenings, increasing fecal immunochemical test use was associated with an estimated additional 655 825 colorectal cancer screenings and 2715 colorectal cancer diagnoses, of which 1944 (71.6%) were early stage.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results suggest that the increased use of fecal immunochemical tests during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased colorectal cancer screening participation and more colorectal cancer diagnoses at earlier stages. If our estimates are borne out in real-world clinical practice, increasing fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening participation during the COVID-19 pandemic could mitigate the consequences of reduced screening rates during the pandemic for colorectal cancer outcomes.

The Effects of Different Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Simple Summary

There is large heterogeneity in invitation schemes and participation rates in colorectal cancer screening programs offering fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests). It is unclear what the most effective invitation strategies are for fecal occult blood tests. In this systematic review, advance notification, mailed fecal occult blood test, and reminders had major, consistent, and complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening. Our findings show that the effectiveness of invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening can be substantially increased across several settings by the implementation of comprehensive invitation strategies.

Abstract

Personal invitations for fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests) are increasingly used to raise their usage for colorectal cancer screening. However, there is a large heterogeneity in applied invitation schemes. We aimed to review evidence for the effectiveness of various invitation schemes. The main outcome was the fecal occult blood test usage rate. A systematic search was performed in Medline and Web of Science (up to 9 July 2020). Randomized controlled trials or cluster-randomized controlled trials were eligible, which reported on general invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening sent to the general population at average colorectal cancer risk. (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169409). Overall, 34 studies were included. Invitations with an attached, i.e., mailed fecal occult blood test consistently increased test usage by 4–19.7% points, compared to other methods of test provision. Likewise, the introduction of advance notification consistently led to a higher usage rate, with an increase of 3.3–10.8% points. Reminders showed positive but varying effects by method. With an increase of 8.5–15.8% points, letter or email reminders were more effective than reminders by phone call or text message (0.6–6.5% points). Inconsistent results were found for financial incentives ((−8.4)–20% points) and for added or changed invitation material ((−3.5)–11.8% points). With 3.5–24.7% points, the strongest increases in use were achieved by multifaceted invitation, implementing multiple components. Any invitation scheme was superior over no invitation. Advance notification, mailing of fecal occult blood test, and reminders were consistently shown to have major, complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening settings.

Cost of Increasing Years-of-Life-Gained (YLG) Using Fecal Immunochemical Testing as a Population-Level Screening Model in a Rural Appalachian Population

PURPOSE

Given the innovation of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) to detect polyps in the rectum and colon for removal by colonoscopy, it is important to determine the cost per Life-Year Gained (LYG) when using FIT as a population-level screening model. This is particularly true for medically underserved rural populations. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to make this determination among rural Appalachians experiencing isolation and economic challenges.

METHODS

The study occurred in an 8-county area of southeastern Kentucky. Kits were distributed to 1,424 residents. Seven hundred thirty-two kits (51.4%) were completed and returned. A Markov decision-analytic model was developed using PrecisionTree 7.6.

FINDINGS

Reactive test results occurred for 144 of the completed kits (19.7%). Thirty-seven colonoscopies were verified, with 15 of these indicating precancerous changes or actual cancer. Program costs were estimated at $461,952, with the average cost per person screened estimated at $324. Cost per LYG was $7,912.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to an average cost per LYG of $17,200, our findings suggest a highly favorable cost-effectiveness ratio for this population of medically underserved rural residents. Cost-benefit analyses suggest that the screening program begins to yield positive net benefits at the stage when project recipients undergo colonoscopy, suggesting that this is the key step for behavioral intervention and intensified outreach.

Advanced Notification Calls Prior to Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test in Previously Screened Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Phone calls as part of multimodal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach are effective but resource-intensive. Previous studies of advanced notification calls before FIT mailing have not differentiated patients' prior screening status.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of a phone call preceding mailing of a FIT kit on test completion rate for patients who have completed a prior FIT.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial nested within a larger study. All patients were assigned to receive organized mailed FIT outreach in the larger study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients in a safety-net health setting ages 50-75 years old with a previously negative FIT.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to either receive an advanced notification phone call or no phone call preceding a mailed FIT kit. Both groups received an informational postcard prior to the mailed FIT.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was FIT completion rate at 1 year. The secondary outcomes were FIT completion rates at 60, 90, and 180 days, rates stratified by demographic subgroups, and rates according to outcome of the phone call.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 1645 patients were assigned to advanced notification calls and 1595 were assigned to no call preceding the FIT mailing. Although FIT completion rate was higher at day 60 (55.5% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.01), an advanced notification call did not significantly improve FIT completion at 1 year (70.9% vs. 69.9%, p = 0.52). Of the patients assigned to receive an advanced notification call, 90.5% were spoken with or left a voicemail; patients who were spoken with were more likely to complete a FIT at 1 year compared with patients who were only left a voicemail or could not be left a voicemail (79.9% vs. 69.2% vs. 49.6%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced notification phone calls prior to FIT mailing did not improve rates at 1 year for patients with a previously negative FIT.

Effectiveness of a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach: a Medicare Advantage pilot study

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach effectively increases colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but is underutilized. This pilot aimed to determine the use of FIT for CRC screening among Medicare Advantage enrollees when offered via mailed outreach and the factors associated with FIT return.

METHODS

Our pilot study included Medicare Advantage enrollees who were 50-75-years old, not up to date with CRC screening, and had a billable primary care encounter in the prior 3 years. Eligible patients received a letter containing information about CRC screening and a FIT kit, screening status by FIT was then assessed using the electronic health record.

RESULTS

Of the 1142 patients identified, 945 were eligible for outreach. On 12-month follow up, 29% of patients (n = 276) completed CRC screening via FIT, with a median return time of 140 days [interquartile range (IQR) 52-257]; 6% (n = 17) of the completed tests were positive, and 53% (n = 9) of patients have completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. Patients with primary encounter <12 months prior to mailed outreach were most likely to complete a FIT. Over the 12-month study period, CRC screening rates increased by 5% (63-68%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mailed FIT outreach in a Medicare Advantage population was feasible and led to a 5% increase in CRC screening completion. Our pilot revealed rare incorrect patient addresses and high lab discard rate; both important factors that were addressed prior to larger-scale implementation of a mailed FIT program. Further research is needed to understand the potential impact of multilevel interventions on CRC screening in this healthcare system.

Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

Costs of Two Health Insurance Plan Programs to Mail Fecal Immunochemical Tests to Medicare and Medicaid Plan Members

BeneFIT is a 4-year observational study of a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans in Oregon and Washington. In Health Plan Oregon's (HPO) collaborative model, HPO mails FITs that enrollees return to their clinics for processing. In Health Plan Washington's (HPW) centralized model, FITs are mailed directly to enrollees who return them to a centralized laboratory. This paper examines model-specific Year 1 development and implementation costs and estimates costs per screened enrollee. Staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets. Non-labor costs were from study and external data. Data matched each plan's 2016 development and implementation dates. HPO development costs were $23.0K, primarily administration (eg, clinic recruitment). HPW development costs were $37.3K, 38.8% for FIT selection and mailing/tracking protocols. Year 1 implementation costs were $51.6K for HPO and $139.7K for HPW, reflecting HPW's greater outreach. Labor was 50.4% ($26.0K) of HPO's implementation costs, primarily enrollee eligibility and processing returned FITs, and was shared by HPO ($17.0K) and 6 participating clinics ($9.0K). Labor was 10.5% of HPW's implementation costs, primarily administration and enrollee eligibility. HPO's implementation costs per enrollee were 12.3% higher ($18.36) than for HPW ($16.34). Similar proportions of completed FITs among screening-eligibles produced a 15% lower cost per completed FIT in HPW ($89.75) vs. HPO ($105.79). Implementation costs for HPO only (without clinic costs) were $15.16/mailed introductory letter, $16.09/mailed FIT, and $87.35/completed FIT, comparable to HPW. Results highlight cost implications of different approaches to implementing a mailed FIT program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans.

Outreach and Inreach Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latinos at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2015-2018

Objectives. To compare usual care, inreach consisting of one-on-one education, mailed outreach offering a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a combination of outreach and inreach for promoting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.Methods. We conducted a 4-arm randomized controlled trial from 2015 to 2018 at a US federally qualified health center near the California-Mexico border primarily serving low-income Hispanics/Latinos. A total of 673 individuals aged 50 to 75 years not up to date with screening were assigned to 1 of the 4 intervention groups. The primary outcome was CRC screening through 6 months follow-up.Results. A total of 671 patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. Their mean age was 59.9 years, 48.9% were male, and 86.3% were primarily Spanish-speaking. Screening was 27.5% for usual care (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21, 0.34), 52.7% for inreach (95% CI = 0.45, 0.60), 77.2% for outreach (95% CI = 0.71, 0.83), and 78.9% for combination of inreach and outreach (95% CI = 0.73, 0.85; P < .001 for all comparisons except P = .793 for outreach vs combination).Conclusions. Among individuals at high risk for noncompletion, inreach with one-on-one education nearly doubled, and outreach offering mailed FIT alone or in combination with inreach nearly tripled screening compared with usual care. Mailed FIT outreach was superior to inreach for promoting screening.